State of Iowa v. Jeremy Joseph Saul

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-0240
Filed February 11, 2026
_______________

State of Iowa,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Jeremy Joseph Saul,
Defendant–Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County,
The Honorable Tod Deck, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer,
Assistant Appellate Defender, attorneys for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Katherine Wenman, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for appellee.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Chicchelly, P.J., Langholz, J., and Doyle, S.J.
Opinion by Langholz, J.

1
LANGHOLZ, Judge.

A jury found Jeremy Saul guilty of eluding and first-degree theft for
driving a stolen car in a high-speed chase. 1 See Iowa Code §§ 321.279(2),
714.1(4), 714.2(1) (2023). Saul appeals his convictions, challenging only the
sufficiency of the evidence that he was the driver of the stolen car. Because
substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict, we affirm Saul’s convictions.

We review Saul’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting his convictions for correction of errors at law. See State v.
Crawford, 972 N.W.2d 189, 202 (Iowa 2022). We are bound by the jury’s
verdict “if the verdict is supported by substantial evidence.” Id. Evidence is
substantial when “sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact the defendant
is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. It matters not whether the evidence
is direct or circumstantial. See State v. Ernst, 954 N.W.2d 50, 57 (Iowa 2021).
And in assessing its sufficiency, we view “the evidence in the light most
favorable to the State” and make all “legitimate inferences and presumptions
that may fairly and reasonably be deduced from the record evidence.” State
v. Brown, 5 N.W.3d 611, 615–16 (Iowa 2024) (cleaned up).

The jury heard evidence that about 2:00 a.m. one morning in
November 2023, a deputy sheriff was stopped at a stoplight in Sioux City. He
observed a car from the intersecting street turning toward him and
recognized it as matching the description of a car that had been stolen the
month before. As the car passed, he saw a man in dark clothes driving and a
woman in the passenger’s seat. And once he confirmed that the car’s license
plate matched the stolen car, the deputy turned around to try to stop the car.

1
Saul later admitted to being a habitual offender, so both convictions were
enhanced under Iowa Code section 902.8 (2023). The district court sentenced Saul to two
consecutive fifteen-year indeterminate prison sentences.

2
Instead, a high-speed chase ensued. Many law-enforcement officers
and agencies joined in parts of the chase as the car eluded pursuit, making its
way to the interstate highway and then across the state line to South
Dakota—at times reaching speeds of 130 miles per hour. The chase ended
only when the car crashed into a metal gate in a South Dakota nature
preserve. Police officers from South Dakota saw a man get out of the driver’s
side of the car and run away toward a nearby lake. A woman got out of the
passenger door, ran toward the officers, and was quickly apprehended.

Officers eventually spotted a man swimming across the lake to a
wooded and grassy area on the other side. One officer saw him take off some
of his clothes on the other side of the lake and then run off. After establishing
a perimeter and searching for about an hour, officers found Saul hiding in the
grass wearing only underwear and a tank top. He was soaking wet and
shivering with his teeth chattering—it was only 40 degrees. The officers also
found a pile of wet dark clothing, including a dark hoodie, at the tree line on
that side of the lake. Because of his apparent hypothermia, an ambulance was
called to take Saul to a hospital for treatment.

Meanwhile, the original deputy who started the chase had arrived on
the scene and was assisting with the detention of the woman. After she told
him her name, he learned from a Sioux City police officer who was familiar
with her that she was dating Saul. The deputy looked up a prior booking
photo for Saul and recognized him as the man the deputy saw driving the car
when it passed by at the Sioux City stoplight. Later, the deputy also observed
Saul in the ambulance and again confirmed that Saul was the person he saw
driving the car.

All this was substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict that Saul
was the driver of the stolen car. Not only did the deputy’s eyewitness

3
testimony identify Saul as the driver, but a pile of circumstantial evidence
supports the same conclusion.

On appeal, as he did at trial, Saul casts doubt on the credibility of the
deputy’s identification. Yet it was the jury’s job to assess the deputy’s
credibility, and it is not our place to second-guess that decision. See Brown,
5 N.W.3d at 616. Saul also theorizes that the circumstances of his arrest could
be consistent with him riding along “in the back of the car” rather than
driving. Setting aside the strong evidence that there was no third person in
the car—and the deputy’s identification of Saul as the driver—“the State
need not discredit every other potential theory to be drawn from
circumstantial evidence.” Ernst, 954 N.W.2d at 57.

Because the evidence was sufficient to convince a reasonable jury that
Saul was the driver of the stolen vehicle beyond a reasonable doubt—and he
challenges no other elements of his offenses—we affirm Saul’s convictions.

AFFIRMED.

4